$8 Billion Deal Gives Crucial Momentum to G.O.P. Health Bill

>How far that $8 billion would go to ensuring that people with pre-existing medical conditions remain covered is not clear. The Upton legislation doesn’t set down any rules for who states would make eligible for the pool, how much care would be covered, or how much individuals could be asked to spend themselves on premiums.

>The number of states that opted to create high-risk pools would also influence how far the $8 billion in additional funding would stretch. But a 2010 estimate made by conservative health economists at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested that an adequate high risk pool program for the country would cost between $15 billion and $20 billion a year. More liberal groups have estimated far larger numbers.

>But with Mr. Upton and Mr. Long back on board, Republican leaders appeared ready to call another vote, after the collapse of their measure in March. Victory is far from assured. Another Republican from a Democratic-leaning district, Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida, seemed to indicate he was leaning against the American Health Care Act, as the Republican legislation is known, although he stood ready to be persuaded by Mr. Upton.

>And pressure from health care providers, disease advocacy groups and others remains intense. The advocacy arm of the retirees’ lobby AARP tweeted that the Upton amendment was an “$8 billion giveaway to insurance companies; won’t help majority of those w/preexisting conditions. We remain opposed.”

>Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said the money would be a small fraction of what is needed.

>“It’s time for the Republicans to abandon their moral monstrosity and pull this bill,” she said.
...

>If the effort fails, it will greatly weaken the president’s hand on Capitol Hill and cast a shadow across the rest of his legislative agenda, especially the deep tax cuts and rewrite of the tax code that he has proposed — and promise to be no easier to tackle than health care.

>Mr. Upton, the former chairman of one of the House committees that drafted the American Health Care Act, has a long history of negotiating with Democrats on health care measures, and his support could prove crucial.

>He said on Tuesday that the latest version of the health care bill “torpedoes” protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.

>Trying to win their votes on the health bill, Mr. Trump met Wednesday with Mr. Upton and Mr. Long. Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas and Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who succeeded Mr. Upton as the head of that powerful panel also attended the meeting. The deal-making appears to have worked.

>Last-minute spending increases and special provisions in 2009 and 2010 to win over Senate Democrats to the Affordable Care Act had outraged some conservatives who fumed at “the Cornhusker kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase.” But so far, the Upton amendment has prompted no such anger on the Republican side.

>Republican leaders now hope to get the bill through the House by Thursday, before lawmakers go home again and face pressure from constituents. Party leaders are facing an onslaught of advocacy groups and Democratic attack ads saying the bill would harm the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Even a late-night talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel, joined with an emotional appeal.
...

>A tearful Mr. Kimmel on Monday night told the story of his infant son, Billy, who was born with heart defects and had surgery. Mr. Kimmel pleaded with Congress not to undermine the Affordable Care Act’s ban on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

>After Mr. Kimmel’s monologue went viral, former President Barack Obama weighed in on Twitter, writing: “Well said, Jimmy. That’s exactly why we fought so hard for the ACA, and why we need to protect it for kids like Billy.”

>House Republican leaders are also fighting against the clock. The House is scheduled to be in recess beginning on Friday and is not set to return until May 16. Republicans who are on the fence are likely to get an earful from their constituents.

>“I think it’s imperative that we have a vote before we leave for a week,” Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said on Tuesday.

>Republicans were clearly divided over the adequacy of the bill’s protections for people who are sick or disabled. At the heart of the debate is an amendment to the repeal bill proposed by Representative Tom MacArthur, Republican of New Jersey. The amendment, which won over the Freedom Caucus last week, would give state governments the ability to apply for waivers from the existing law’s required “essential health benefits,” such as maternity, mental health and emergency care, and from rules that generally mandate the same insurance rates for people of the same age, regardless of their medical conditions.

>With a waiver, states could permit insurers to charge higher premiums based on the “health status” of a person who had experienced a gap in coverage. To qualify for a waiver, a state would have to have an alternative mechanism, like a high-risk pool or a reinsurance program, to provide or subsidize coverage for people with serious illnesses.
...

>“States can’t leave people with pre-existing conditions high and dry,” Mr. MacArthur said Tuesday, defending his proposal.

>But the MacArthur amendment prompted a coalition of health care groups, including the American Medical Association, and organizations like the American Heart Association and March of Dimes to urge the House to vote against the bill. That has distressed some Republicans.

>Representative Tom Rooney, Republican of Florida, said he was “leaning yes” on the repeal bill, but agonizing over how to explain his vote to constituents.

>“I have a lot of people who call my office on a daily basis who are extremely angry,” he said. “It’s not just because I’m a Republican, but because they are sincerely scared.”

>Many people with pre-existing conditions fear that they may lose coverage and “are going to die because of a vote we might be taking,” Mr. Rooney said.

>Members of the Freedom Caucus did not seem interested in compromising much further.

>“The pre-existing condition debate and discussion in Congress, far as I’m concerned, is over,” Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the Freedom Caucus, said Tuesday. “They are covered; we acknowledge it; we provide for it; it is done.”

related:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-trump-right-that-pre-existing-conditions-are-covered-in-the-gop-health-care-bill/

>>136704
Does it make sense for them to be covered at all?

>>136708
It depends on if you think health care is a universal human right or a for-profit industry. In america the question isn't decided like it is for the rest of the world.

>>136708
I thought conservatives were supposed to be "pro life"? Does that not include people with treatable medical conditions?